National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mrs. Shakuntla Devi vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 27 October, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 3975 OF 2011 (Against order dated 30.08.2011 in First Appeal No.731 of 2006 of the Haryana, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Mrs. Shakuntla Devi Wd/o late Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Diya Aged about 55 years, R/o Vililage-Ganauli District Jagdahari District Yamuna Nagar. . Petitioner Versus 1. National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager and Authorized signatory of its Regional Office HCO No. 337-340, Near Fountain Chowk, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh. 2. The Director Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Sector-17-A, Chandigarh 3. The Learned Commission, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana .... Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioners: Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Advocate Pronounced on: 27th October, 2014 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Petitioner/Complainant has filed this petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Act,1986 (for short, Act) challenging order dated 30.08.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, State Commission)
2. Brief facts are, that Mr. Sohan Lal-husband of petitioner who was a labourer had sustained fatal injuries caused by a stray bull and as such died on 19.02.2004. It is stated that prior to the death of deceased, a Scheme had come into force called Devi Rakshak, Ch. Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna. As per this Scheme, persons who were in the age group of 18 to 65 years and have died unnatural death and were bread earner of the family and their names appeared in the voter list or ration card, were entitled to compensation to the tune of ₹1 lac. The case of deceased is fully covered under the Scheme. However, Respondents/Opposite Parties rejected the claim of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. Hence, consumer complaint was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a sum of ₹.1 lac as compensation. Besides this, ₹. 50,000/- were claimed as compensation for mental and physical harassment and ₹.10,000/- as cost along with 12% interest.
3. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement took the plea that deceased had not died due to hitting of the bull as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, deceased was ill for few days and the cause of death was due to sickness. Since, it was not a case of unnatural death, deceased was not covered under the Scheme.
4. Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 also supported the version of respondent no.1.
5. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhari (for short, District Forum) allowed the complaint, vide order dated 07.02.2006 and directed respondent no.1 to pay ₹ 1,00,000/- compensation to the complainant alongwith 12% interest and also to pay a sum of ₹ 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
6. Being aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed appeal (No. 731 of 2006) before the State Commission which dismissed the same, vide order dated 4.10.2010.
7. Respondent No.1 challenged the order of the State Commission before this Commission by filing Revision Petition No.141 of 2011. This Commission vide order dated 19.07.2011, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the State Commission.
8. Thereafter, State Commission vide its impugned order, accepted the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
9. Hence, the present revision.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
11. The case of the petitioner is that her husband died due to bull injuries and as such petitioner is entitled to a sum of ₹ 1 lac under the Scheme.
12. Thus, onus lies upon the petitioner to prove this fact that her deceased-husband died from any bull injury. Petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that her husband sustained bull injuries. Even assuming for the arguments sake that deceased has suffered bull injuries, then where he had undergone medical treatment. Moreover, petitioner has not placed on record death certificate or document related to the death of the deceased so as to show as to what was the cause of death of the deceased.
13. The State Commission in its impugned order, in this regard has observed;
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the instant case the deceased has suffered a natural death due to illness and not died due to any accident as per the MoU Annexure A-1. In support of his argument Shri Gupta has drawn our attention towards the letter bearing Memo No.1034 dated 20.4.2004 written by Tehsildar, Chhachhrauli to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jagadhri.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly as per MoU Annexure A-1, the compensation of rupees one lac was to be given to the claimant in case of death/permanent total disability due to accident. As per letter Annexure A-3 written by Tehsildar, Chhachhrauli to the S.D.O. (Civil), Jagadhri the deceased Sohan Lal-husband of the complainant died due to illness and not due to any accident. The complainant has failed to produce on record the copy of DDR/FIR and the Postmortem Report to prove the death of the deceased Sohan Lal due to accident. The certificate issued by Sarpanch of the Village is hardly of any significance in comparison to the report submitted by Tehsildar. Even otherwise as per letter Annexure A-3 dated 20.4.2004, complainants claim is not covered under DEVI RAKSHAM Policy. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate this cogent and convincing evidence and erred in allowing the complaint and thus the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
In view of our aforesaid discussion, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
14. There is no reason to disagree with the above findings of the State Commission, since petitioner has failed to establish that her husband had died due to bull injuries. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the aforesaid Scheme. Thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition stand dismissed.
15. No order as to cost.
....
(V.B. GUPTA, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER SSB/